21

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If a BH singularity defies our mathematics does it also defy our physics?

« on: 17/06/2021 09:16:33 »

We could mention that Einstein found the idea of BH rather intimidating. He went from questioning their existence to accepting, and as I seem to remember, doing it on several occasions, before finally accepting it.

22

Just Chat! / Re: Mathematics is a decent science.

« on: 17/06/2021 09:07:35 »

Probably because most of us aren't that advanced when it come to mathematics ES. But yes, I agree in that it could be one of TNS offerings. Although when mathematics is needed it usually will get used here too. If you use it though it should be a priority to be very clear about what your symbols indicate, and how to read it/you. For much the same reasons.

23

General Science / Re: How does one Quantify the Colors of a Quark?

« on: 14/06/2021 13:58:21 »

I don't have a direct link to the story behind why they named it 'colors'.

But           " As mentioned and shown in Figure 1, quarks carry another quantum number, which we call color. Of course, it is not the color we sense with visible light, but its properties are analogous to those of three primary and three secondary colors. Specifically, a quark can have one of three color values we call red (R), green (G), and blue (B) in analogy to those primary visible colors. Antiquarks have three values we call antired or cyan (¯R), antigreen or magenta (¯G), and antiblue or yellow (¯B) in analogy to those secondary visible colors. The reason for these names is that when certain visual colors are combined, the eye sees white.

The analogy of the colors combining to white is used to explain why baryons are made of three quarks, why mesons are a quark and an antiquark, and why we cannot isolate a single quark. The force between the quarks is such that their combined colors produce white. This is illustrated in Figure 5. A baryon must have one of each primary color or RGB, which produces white. A meson must have a primary color and its anticolor, also producing white. "

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/33-5-quarks-is-that-all-there-is/

Does it pretty well.  I used to have a more 'original' and rather fun link to how they came up with it but it's unfortunately gone.

24

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is everything in the universe in motion?

« on: 12/06/2021 14:59:31 »

Hi Yor_on.   I hope you are well.

  Yes, the CMBR is observer dependant.  There will be a dipole in the frequencies of e-m radiation observed according to the motion of the observer.
    Easy reference:   https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole.

   The CMB frame is an inertial frame where the dipole disappears.

Late editing   Obviously no one has actually travelled to another group of galaxies or moved a bank of microwave receivers at relativistic speeds to see how that affects the dipole.  The earlier discussion(s) refer to what our models suggest and the main empirical evidence we have for this is that the real observations from our part of the universe are consistent with it.

:) Np ES, it's a pleasure reading you. And if we consider 'relative motion' we can test it at different locations in space and time. Just by staying on earth, or in its vicinity.

25

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is everything in the universe in motion?

« on: 10/06/2021 10:53:31 »

So the CBR (CMB) is observer dependent? Makes sense to me, if that is what you're suggesting ES.

26

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why did Einstein say that time is an illusion?

« on: 10/06/2021 10:32:25 »

Two different aspect of that might be.

1. in where we define it all as abstractions. 'Laws', 'Properties' defining a universe and making it 'exist'.

2. Experimental logic's searching for 'grains', something touchable that exist and creates our reality.

One is totally abstract, the other expect it to come down to something 'there' creating the abstractions.

27

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why did Einstein say that time is an illusion?

« on: 09/06/2021 18:44:40 »

It's hard to pinpoint it but I would expect it to have a lot to do with Special relativity. From that you get both time dilation's and LorentzFitzGerald contractions. And if there is no way to define a 'absolute time', and no way to define a 'absolute length' globally, as in using a whole universe for defining it then time and all measurements becomes 'fluid'. Locally the same, as joining a 'same frame of reference' can show you but as soon they're not joined, starting to differ. Take a look at NIST and their experiments with atomic clocks for it.  General relativity rests on Special relativity, adding gravity to it.

28

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 17/05/2021 20:57:22 »

No Charles, at least I hope we don't. Take a look at the current conflict in Israel Gaza for how some people act about it though, 'game theory' and what you can gain by so called 'real politik'. The difference between a conventional war and a nuclear is not that big from a military perspective, well, if you just look to the bang, especially as the doctrine has been changed to 'limited nuclear warfare' with 'low yields'. It's a very big step from the old doctrine in where we had MAD (mutually assured destruction). Russia don't seem to agree with the new doctrine, and neither do I. And there is a nuclear arms race happening today, as well as modernization, and a very questionable modernization as the studies I've read don't seem to indicate it to be needed at all. But it  fits the new doctrine, at least for USA. I doubt Russia goes for low yield, I can't be sure of course but they've always wanted to be the 'worst' there could be when it came to that bang

There are other ways to clean a battlefield from life without destroying infra structures if that is the objective.

29

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could there be life on other planets?

« on: 25/02/2021 21:11:13 »

Yes, I think it's one of the main purposes of a universe. To create life. The thread is old but so is the question. Darwin had this idea of it starting in pools bathed in sunlight. It seems he might be correct.

30

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 10/01/2021 17:18:25 »

Yeah, I know, kind of crazy :) Then again, it is a weird universe.

31

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the best explanation for Three Polarizer “Paradox”?

« on: 17/12/2020 05:29:39 »

You might find this interesting hamdani yusuf .  https://skullsinthestars.com/2020/02/05/visualizing-the-geometric-phase-of-light/

32

New Theories / Re: What causes Tunneling?

« on: 05/12/2020 03:54:26 »

When it comes to using 'c' as a imaginary number we have this.

" ABSTRACT

The quest to find faster‐than‐light particles has intrigued physicists for decades, though it has yet to turn up any real candidates. Even if a superluminal universe does exist, we have no way to reach it given that we must go through the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is impossible. In this paper, I show that by making speed complex, we can go around the speed of light in a manner analogous to the way a car faced with an infinitely tall road block might leave the road to go around that barrier.

The treatment is a mathematical device; no known physical interpretation exists for the imaginary part of a complex speed. However, it can provide an entertaining problem in special relativity, one that may encourage students to think about the connections between equations and the physical universe. "

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/12643-can-imaginary-numbers-solve-the-problem-of-faster-than-light-travel

and imaginary numbers do have their place in physics. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html

33

New Theories / Re: What causes Tunneling?

« on: 04/12/2020 02:16:44 »

I suspect you have something of a new theory there. We have a place for that if you want to expand on it further. In the mean time this might be relevant. Fermat's principle. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/7010/CM_03_FermatLeastTime.html

34

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does past, present, future exist at once? What is block universe?

« on: 01/11/2020 21:27:59 »

I don't know, nobody does. I still will try to define it. It's 'energy',  and 'energy' is a coin of exchange. the way it works is called 'entropy' From that we go to relativity in where the only thing we can define is your local model. If that agrees with mine and others, we have a 'fact'. The same goes for any 'repeatable' experiments you create.
=

It's about building a world image. In relativity all models are local, they build up to a 'global' model in where we state this will be valid for all times, and at all places. In quantum theory that's not enough. that's where 'many worlds' come in

Block universes comes in various shades. The thing joining them is the idea of 'time' not having a arrow. And free will may exist or not in such a universe. As long as we define the choices as being 'infinite' in it.

35

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is our universe derived from the same details that created it?

« on: 06/10/2020 14:24:43 »

We have 'laws' in physics. Not materialistic things that you can touch but laws. You might wonder if those laws would be a 'origin', and the way we define them is that without them this universe wouldn't be what it is today. Statistics describes some of them, as the average rate of decay for something radioactive. then we have conservation laws, symmetries etc. We also have 'properties' of f.ex specific particles, as bosons and fermions.But it doesn't tell us if those laws is a result or a origin?  Well, I might lean to immaterial laws but others won't. You can take a thought as a example of something immaterial that may have great consequences for us all.

=
spelling

36

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?

« on: 23/09/2020 12:21:31 »

And if you think of it, I would call this a lot more mind boggling than any ideas of taychons existing. If it is correct, but it should be. Inside a Black hole, depending on how you define that 'center' you should disappear from any outside observer, and that is without 'wormhole technology'.
=

Locally defined it should look as if space becomes infinite, possibly? The event horizon won't exist for you any more as any direction you choose invariably will lead you only one way, towards that 'center', where or what -ever it is. Some define as if the 'center' is reached as soon as you passed your (real) event horizon. It's pretty weird, a black hole.
=

Have a read https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-big-bang-may-be-a-black-hole-inside-another-universe-79ce12613c60
=

One assumption I build it on (not the article, that's unrelated) is that 'c' will be 'c' wherever you are, and that 'c' is a equivalence to a locally defined 'perfect clock'. It's not the 'speed' I'm interested in there, it's like a conservation law, the speed doesn't matter, the equivalence do.

37

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?

« on: 23/09/2020 11:28:43 »

This " Inside the event horizon space and time change their roles " is about mathematics. It's a specific solution to the standard Schwarzschild coordinates. In reality it is about a zone from where noting escapes, not even light. You falling in wouldn't notice time and space 'changing place', and your wristwatch would give you the same clock rate, well, more or less if introducing tidal forces. But without them there would be nothing special happening to you, and you would reach whatever 'center' there is in a, for you, measurable time.

What happens to 'space' inside is that it conforms to gravity and 'shrinks'. And so do you and your meter stick, as defined from a outside far away. Not to you locally defined though. The same goes for the time component, as from a outside it 'slows down', and as the inside is a singularity the 'center' should be a place where a outside observer would say that your clock has stopped, as far as I see. And the same should then go for your 'size' as a guess. Aka, you 'disappeared'

And yes, the 'evaporation' is a quantum physical effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

38

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would an immersed bottle be filled?

« on: 27/03/2020 21:18:45 »

Everyone seem to get it except me. I get stuck directly reading ' immerse inversely a sealed bottle ' Inversely meaning? A Klein bottle or?

39

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can quantum entanglement be proven?

« on: 10/11/2019 16:23:24 »

The whole point of a quantum entanglement is that you don't know what spin this particle you measure will have, it has a fifty fifty percentage in a simplest case of being 'up' or 'down', and you can do the a same experiment with a same collection of particles several times to find that sometimes they are 'up' and sometimes they are 'down'.

What you do know is that the other 'particle' split from the original through a beam divider of some sort 'instantly' will know its partners spin as soon as you measure the first one. Measuring it collapses the probabilities it contained, and for its 'twin' too. But before that measurement nothing was sure.
=

And yes, the whole question becomes one of how it could 'know instantly' what spin its partner would present. As for information the idea is that this won't be allowed as it is 'ftl'. Information is presumed to have a 'speed' no higher than 'c'. But then you have the injection of 'energy' as you measure it (bump it), and that's something I wonder about. Will its partner gain energy too? Or is there no 'energy' involved in this measuring?

the point of that question is one of if we still can 'separate' them from each other, or if they are 'indivisible'. There is a difference I think? You could also call it a question of 'information'  and 'speeds' ..

And yes, if someone knows of a experiment checking this I would be very interested. But it has to be a classic one in where we separate the particles a fair distance. both in 'splendid isolation' before measuring, also defining their energy before a measurement, then adding whatever 'kinetic energy' we create in our first measurement, comparing it to its twin. As it is our interference with their indeterminate state that defines the 'wave collapse' the 'spin' of the first is not the interesting factor here, we can shoot the first one with a laser if we like as long as we know the energy it contained before. And it's not the spin of its twin that we are interested in anymore, just its energy.

=

spelling

40

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?

« on: 07/11/2019 09:20:36 »

If you instead of that want to think about it as fields of different energy density interacting it becomes one more interpretation :)
In that case most of what we take for granted disappear. A hole isn't a hole, it's something of a 'energy density' or maybe lack of, looking as a hole to us. and a 'particle' is not a projectile, instead it becomes a emanation of either ' one field's ' interaction with itself or fields interacting. I think that suits my own taste better than the other approaches. As you wrote light has a wave particle duality, and I see that as absolutely correct.
==

there is one big hurdle with the field idea, to me then. And that is how to make it fit relativity. What that means is that our universe is 'observer dependent' looked at from relativity. You can 'shrink' this universe through mass f.ex or by speeds. And those effects are no artifacts but physical laws. So if we define a universe as a field interacting with itself, or fields, we still need to incorporate relativity in it. And that is where it becomes really weird.

What it means is that everything might be said to have different 'speeds' versus your observation/platform. Which means that every object you observe will have its own definition of a size and time of/in this universe. Scaling it down we meet particles and passing that 'breaking it up' fields.  That's also where it starts to hurt my head.

there is one more dimension we need to add to fields and that is time. Depending on how you look at it it becomes a arrow pointing one way, or a ocean. If you think of it as a ocean then that can contain a lot of possibilities, and also catch the way Einstein defined SpaceTime, consisting of four dimensions. three double ended and one with only one direction. And if you set that together with observer dependencies you get not only one universe but a multitude, one each for each 'observer'.

If you conclude that neither Relativity, nor QM (and fields) are satisfied with what we naively think of as our reality and universe, I would agree :)

==

you could also think of it as an 'ocean' consisting of probabilities in where 'time' is directly connected to decoherence giving us outcomes which then becomes our arrow. But 'probabilities' is also a snake biting its own tail in that it comes from us collecting statistics. so defining it as probabilities doesn't lead us any further as I think, but that may be where I'm wrong?

It may depend on how we define time.